Talk:Georgia State University

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Universities (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Universities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of universities and colleges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state) / Atlanta (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Georgia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Atlanta task force (marked as High-importance).
 

GSU Userbox template[edit]

If you are a student or an alumnus of Georgia State University, you can add thisuserbox on your userpage: {{User GSU}}, to display this on your userpage:
GSU This user attends or attended Georgia State University

Citation source[edit]

Veritas Valet Et vincet as the school's motto took some research but it is easy enough found. The school also has a coat of arms that is just as obscure. I am searching for better sources but for now the GSU website itself vaguely refers to in pdf archives for student organizations. Angrynight 05:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Very cool- I couldn't find the school motto before. The campus PR or publications office might be willing to provide a copy of the coat of arms that can be scanned. If I have time in the next month or so I'll try to swing by there and see. Rjhatl 03:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Need confirmation[edit]

Notable Alum[edit]

Could not find any confirmation, and he is not listed in the Alumni directory. Samatva 21:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

He's not a graduate; his GA House bio[1] says he went 2 years there. AUTiger ʃ talk/work 20:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Urban Geography?[edit]

GSU no longer has a geography program (I majored in geography there), so I don't see how it is revelant now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.209.183.182 (talk) 22:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

The Geography and Anthropology programs were split. Geography was paired with the Geology program and is now part of the Geosciences. So, there's still geography at GSU. Rjhatl (talk) 13:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent Growth[edit]

I think there should be something in the article about the Mainstreet Master Plan and the new additions coming soon. Its crazy how the school wen from no dorms ten years ago and one main building to the new commons and the sprall of buildings it has added. GSUdorf 05:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no mention of the new science building in this article. The Petit Science Center opened up I think in May 2010. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.96.40.134 (talk) 15:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Georgia-State-Logo.svg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Georgia-State-Logo.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

History of GSU[edit]

I like a brief history being on this page. I'm not sure that splitting the history off to a separate page/article is necessary. That being said, if the history is quite extensive, then that might warrant a separate page. Regardless, I think this page should always have a brief history of the institution.

Carsonmc (talk) 16:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge here of Georgia State University Foundation[edit]

  • Propose merge here, on the basis that it is only a short article, currently tagged as having multiple issues, and the text would fit fine as a section in this article. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

File:NewGSU1.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:NewGSU1.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

File:NewGSU2.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:NewGSU2.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

File:NewGSU3.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:NewGSU3.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

File:GSUcoatofarms.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:GSUcoatofarms.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:GSUcoatofarms.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit]

Justification for use of seal per Wikipedia policy[edit]

Here, as I understand it, is the 10-point justification Fomeister is requesting. The question he has raised is whether or not display of the university's seal in this article meets all 10 points of Wikipedia's non-free content policy. I believe the answer is yes, it satisfies those requirements. I encourage other editors to discuss below whether they agree or disagree with the justification I am articulating here.

  1. No free equivalent. - This is obvious to me. A university's seal is separate and distinct from its logo. Georgia State University's official identity guide recognizes this, providing separate information for the logo and for the seal, both of which it recognizes as representing the university's identity, in different ways.
  2. Respect for commercial opportunities. - A low-resolution version of the seal is used in this Wikipedia article. It could not, for instance, be reprinted on T-shirts or mugs. It is not the case that "one item can convey equivalent significant information." The school's own visual identity policies make clear that the seal conveys different information in a different way, which is why the seal, and not the logo, is used on "material such as diplomas, diploma frames, class rings, certificates," etc.
  3. continuation of respect for commercial opportunities
  4. Previous publication. - Do a Google image search to see it published on multiple public websites.
  5. Content. - It is clear to me that the university's seal "meets general Wikipedia content standards and is encyclopedic." It's information, not offensive, and accurate.
  6. Media-specific policy. - All the specifics of how this image meets Wikipedia's image use policy are clearly presented on the image's file page. This includes justified rationale related to Wikipedia:Logos. It also meets the Wikipedia:File copyright tags guidelines.
  7. One-article minimum. - That's this article.
  8. Contextual significance. - Since the seal conveys different information than the logo, and since the seal appears in public in many places where the logo does not, it it fair to say that including the seal does "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." This case is further made by the fact that is an accepted practice of many experienced Wikipedia editors (via their participation in Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities) to include a university's seal at the top of the info box and the logo at the bottom. Those editors clearly have consensus that including the seal aids understanding. It is also useful for GSU's article to be consistent with other universities' articles, as users view multiple articles and compare.
  9. Restrictions on location. - Does not apply. The image appears in an infobox for an article, which is an appropriate location.
  10. Image description page. - The file page meets all these criteria.

So, that's why I believe this university seal and hundreds of others now in place across Wikipedia is in line with Wikipedia policy. Please indicate agreement or disagreement below. -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 17:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

DanielKlotz - Thank you for your edit, and comments. Hopefully this discourse will either end the debate, or tire us out. I for one have other things to be editing. I do however disagree with your justification, as a I believe a few points might be mistaken as POV. So I have posted the actual requirement for fair use before the following:

No free equivalent. "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." Note the "...that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose..." The article is about a University. As far as encyclopedic purpose goes, the purpose of this encylopedia is clear, but for those not engaged I have copied and pasted it below: "Wikipedia's purpose is to benefit readers by acting as an encyclopedia, a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge."

Previous Publication. –Thank you for the link, I am still muddling through how to do that. While the link is valid, the statement is not true. Click the link. That image appears on exactly 1 site other than wiki through the first 14 pages of images. The link is on the home page of an alumnus. There are zero published images found. Contextual significance. - "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."

Even if, someone to dismiss my first two statements, and if, somehow you argued fair-use. "Contextual significance" says a non-free use image can only be used if it significantly increases understand of the topic, AND it's omission would be detrimental to that understanding.

Does anyone truly, truly believe that the the Seal significantly increases the readers' understanding of the topic? And, are you explicitly saying that it's omission would be detrimental to that understanding?

I think more highly of wikipedians than that, don't you? I will wait 72 hours for a response, barring none, and no image reversion to the Seal, I will consider this matter complete. Fomeister (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

What is the free image exactly that you're proposing to replace the seal with? The logo you linked to was nominated for deletion on Commons because it seems to not be public domain. That's a discussion for over there, of course. I'd encourage you to read over WP:OWN a bit in addition to all your other policy reading. Just because you declare an issue resolved doesn't mean it is. If, at Hour 73, someone else changes back to the seal, it doesn't automatically get changed back to the logo because you decreed it. That's not how consensus works, I'm afraid. Esrever (klaT) 20:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I have made several points. And to this point I am satisfied that there a has been discussion. If, you had not noticed in the earlier page, I always wait 72 hours before taking an action. It gives editor time to comment and discuss. But I will tag the image again. It has been tagged, and if anyone submits again without following pf7, than they are certainly violating policy. I feel 72 hours should be enough time for an editor follow through the procedures and justify re-inclusion, on that page. Not here. The burden of proof is on the uploader, not the remover. Esrever Thank you for your comment. I have not linked any logo to this site. Ever. I flagged and removed copyrighted material after much discussion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fomeister (talkcontribs)
Publication on the Web is still publication for the purposes of copyright, so it has been published elsewhere. It doesn't matter if it's the web page of an alumnus or the New York Times. It was also previously on the website of GSU, without a watermark.
Knowing the official image of a university is not an insignificant contribution to a person's knowledge of that university. (Think of the seal of the president of the United States. Knowing that seal enhances a person's knowledge of the office of the president.) If it's not insignificant, it's significant. That's why most university articles on Wikipedia include the seal. To say it's ridiculous to think it's significant is to insult the judgment of dozens of Wikipedia editors.
It makes perfect sense to me that an encyclopedia article on a university would includes its official seal. In fact, since a seal is much less commercial than a logo, I would not be surprised to see a seal and not a logo. A seal graphic seems as encyclopedic as, say, a photo of a prominent building on campus. -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 20:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Again I appreciate your taking the time to discuss, but if you read our POLICY, and include common sense, you may find that while you make an argument, you casually gloss over POLICY:
Contextual significance. - "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Can you understand that _both_ of these have to be true? And in the case of this image, neither is true. Fellow editors, this is very, very simple. Let's not waste precious editing time and energy on this matter. As I said, I tagged the file for copyright violation per pf7. Go to that page and ask to re-upload/revert. This is not a seal/logo debate page. There is no "Seal" policy for wikipedia. There is a "logo" policy, and it is specific to a logo. the "Seal" uploaded is an image, that does not pass all 10 requirements, by any stretch of the imagination. If you would look above, I have linked repeatedly that no ProjectWiki has the ability, nor does consenus give validity, to overcoming POLICY. Ever. Five pillars people...Fomeister (talk) 21:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Active Disagreements[edit]

LOGO

I recently was BOLD and did some editing on the GSU page. I changed the colors deom HTML "red" and "blue" to match the GSU Style guide. I also changed the logo to match the same. I feel that it is always appropriate to follow copyright law, and only use a copyrighted image if there is no free-use image available. My edits were reversed, without comment. I went to the talk page and explained my reasoning. My edits were reversed again, this time with a link to the University project home page, and I was told there was consensus to do so.

There was no discussion, much less discussion on the talk page. There was another editor to comment on me, the editor, but not the worthiness of the edit.

If any editor, or group of editors, wants to change POLICY, there is an avenue to do so. Lacking that, we should follow the spirit and letter of the law.

If editors decided tomorrow to put a copyrighted MP3 version of the "Fight Song" of a University or College on Wiki, and claimed "no free-use was available" while there was a free-use non-copyrighted midi version, that would not follow POLICY. Wiki POLICY is to not use copyrighted images, if a free-use image exists.

The IP/Copyright owner of all images at GSU, namely GSU, has made available one and only image to be used in the public domain. Our refusal to do so is in violation of POLICY.

Not to be contentious, but even if the Seal was free-use, the one on the page is not the current one.

I humbly request that you consider the facts presented, and comment. 01:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

This dispute involves more than two editors (User:MLSGSU, User:ElKevbo, User:Fomeister, and User:Disavian), and does not qualify for Third Opinion, which is limited to disagreements between two editors that have come to a standstill. Although I understand your desire to resolve this dispute, Third Opinion is not the preferred forum for it. Other options include a request for comment, the dispute resolution noticeboard, or a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Third opinion/User FAQ.--SGCM (talk) 01:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

False pretenses[edit]

A user (who will remain nameless) removed the seal (diff) with an edit summary of "Previous image removed per {{db-f7}}." This was a obviously false, because that image is still present at File:Georgia State University Coat of Arms Logo.png, nor was it ever nominated under DB-F7. I don't think this action represents a good faith attempt at achieving consensus.--GrapedApe (talk) 22:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think that's a bit unfair. The user in question, User:Fomeister (it's silly to try to anonymize someone whose edits one can clearly see in the article's history), has an account that's less than a fortnight old. I don't have a tough time believing a relative newcomer isn't entirely familiar with the CSD process, and simply thinks "{{db-f7}}" represents some sort of rule by which an image can be removed. I'm not saying it's a valid reason not to just revert back to the old image with a good edit summary, but I don't think we have to throw AGF out the window, either. Esrever (klaT) 22:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I apologize if I did it wrong. Though I failed to execute it properly, it was my intention to remove based upon DB-F7. I thought putting the tag there would do it. In regards to "good faith attempt", I believe I brought my discussion here and have continued in discourse. It appeared to me that Esrever corrected the template I broke? Fomeister (talk) 23:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
File deletion nominations go on the file page, not the article. Please note that per WP:CSD#F7, even if the fair use rationale was incorrectly applied, the nomination should be in place for 7 days before the image is deleted to give editors a chance to correct it. But, since the fair use rationale is, at a bare minimum, arguably valid, the file is not a candidate for speedy deletion. VQuakr (talk) 02:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Your reasoning has been rejected by every editor who has offered input into this discussion. That you continue to disagree does not give you permission to attempt to ignore and undermine the clear consensus by unilaterally deleting or removing the image.
You've made your points but you clearly have a minority opinion at odds with the consensus understanding of this issue. Drop it and move on. ElKevbo (talk) 05:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you VQuakr for the clarification. I have since then proceeded through the appropriate methods. Thank you.Fomeister (talk) 20:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
ElKevbo, I appreciate your point as well, but I disagree. It would appear that we are at an impasse, and therefore I am going through the Dispute Resolution Process that is an integral part of the Wikipedia community. Fomeister (talk) 20:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I posted to WP:DRN, which was closed as premature. It was highly recommended to post it to WP:NFC which I have done. In regards to the comment on WP:DRN that I was "forum-shopping", I would kindly ask that you retract the remark now, or in the event you do not understand this process, please read up here. Fomeister (talk) 20:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm a volunteer at the dispute resolution noticeboard. The listing there has been closed as premature, but I'd like to note that the proper place for this dispute to be determined is at Non-free content review, which is the venue intended for this kind of determination. The folks who work there do little else besides review free use media claims and are experts on such matters. I'd strongly recommend taking the image there for review. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you TransporterMan, I will do so now. Fomeister (talk) 18:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Since I do not want to mess it up, can someone point/guide me through filing the "Non-free review" ? I know it needs to be on the media page, but not this page (like I just did). Which URL to the media page for the file?- Thanks Fomeister (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

If you click on the image itself, it should take you to the image's page here.
I believe that I have done it correctly.Fomeister (talk) 20:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:NFR comment by ElKevbo[edit]

Based upon my understanding, WP:NFR is not a place to discuss "how" an image got posted there. I posted this matter to WP:NFR, as suggested by WP:DRN. Following the procedure of that forum, I posted the specific reasoning as listed on the top of the page. WP:NFR is for the purpose of discussing the specific reasons provided in the submission. I am seeking guidance here, It it appropriate for someone involved in this talk page to comment on a WP:NFR in this way? I will act upon my own opinion, but I would like to hear thoughts on this matter. Wikipedia is not about winning, and I for one believe it is not really appropriate to make a comment on WP:NFC unless it is specific to the criteria specified to be discussed there. WP:NFC is not a place to complain how something was submitted, and I kindly request that everyone respect each other and follow policy. This is a talk page, WP:NFR is not the place to have this discourse, IMO. Thank you. Fomeister (talk) 21:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I responded to your specific point regarding the image. And it's germane to that discussion to note that others have already addressed and discussed the issue in a different venue. Please, move on. ElKevbo (talk) 21:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Excuse me for pointing out something you may have missed, not one single editor, yourself included, has stated that this is a "free use" image. WP:NFR is for determining if an image is "free" use, NOT "fair-use". I submitted it as "Non-Free-uUse". Your comment on WP:NFR, IMO, was not germane, nor did it discuss the purpose of the forum. Non-Free-Use. Again, while I appreciate your input not only as a member of WikiProject:University, as well as a long-time editor, I humbly submit that you are not being fair to the wiki process and I find your continued closing remark "Move On" to be quite unfriendly? Fomeister (talk) 21:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I hesitate to keep wading into this, but here I go nonetheless. Where, exactly, does the GSU website say that the logo is free-use? As I've noted above, I think the use of the seal, however silly, is perfectly allowable under US fair-use provisions. But User:Fomeister's argument seems to be that a free version of the logo is available. My question, then, is where do we find that free logo? Esrever (klaT) 22:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Esrever, I appreciate your wading in to the discussion. I posted the link on WP:NFR, the logo's GSU have provided here. On that same page, at the bottom, they have watermarked copies of the seal. Since FBIasco, the revised policies of Wiki are very clear. There is a logo, and there are several to choose from on that page.
This particular discussion, is that there is a consensus that we skip WP:NFR, as there is a consensus that is "okay" to use a non-free image, in place of a logo. Wiki has been proven right, time and time again that we can even use a copyrighted logo, provided fair-use rationale is given AND there is no free use logo available. What I see happening here, is that WikiProject:Uni _wants_ to use the seal, rather than the logo.
There is a reason that wiki has a more narrow view of "fair-use" than US copyright laws. We want to have a free-content based encyclopedia. That is why WP:NFR exists, to discuss an image status. It is not something to be decided by consensus on a talk page.
While understand the points raised in opposition to my opinion, I don't agree with them and am doing my best to follow wiki policy. Since there is an impasse regarding POLICY, which cannot be determined by consensus, I keep moving slowly along through all of the steps outlined in POLICY regarding dispute resolution.
Anyone of the editors on this talk page could have submitted the image, received a response, than posted/tagged/removed the image accordingly. However it would appear ,and this is just my opinion, that some think it is "cooler" to have the "Seal" image and they are bound and determined to make that stick.Fomeister (talk) 22:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I think you misunderstood my question. Where on that logo page does it say that the logo image is provided for free use? It appears to be under the same copyright restrictions as the seal. Free in this case doesn't mean "no cost" or "freely available"; free means "without copyright" (that's an oversimplification of US copyright law, but c'est la vie). Esrever (klaT) 23:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
To make myself more clear, I'm wondering where the free logo you want to use is. If both the logo and the seal are both copyrighted, then your argument is moot. Esrever (klaT) 23:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
It is listed on their reproduction page. I apologize for not linking that for you previously. The specific paragraph says- "The logo is arranged in four approved configurations in a designated range of approved colors and color combinations. The two parts of the logo — the mark (flame) and logotype — are always used together (with rare exceptions, as noted in this guide). Neither the mark nor the logotype may be manipulated or changed. Since each of the approved logo configurations is a complete unit, each must be used exactly as shown in this manual.".Fomeister (talk) 23:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Also, thank you for cleaning up my lack of indentation, and corrected my misspelling of your username. Cheers.Fomeister (talk) 23:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Esrever isn't asking where the university says how the logo is to be displayed, but rather where the university licenses public free use of the logo. -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 23:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
(ec) Yes, but the page you've linked to (the reproduction page) does not indicate that the logo is in the public domain or available under a free license. The presumption, then, is that it's also copyrighted. In other words, under Wikipedia's non-free content criteria, it is treated exactly like the seal. You may prefer the logo over the seal (I know I do), but that doesn't make it a free replacement for the seal (again, free in this context means "content that does not bear copyright restrictions on the right to redistribute, study, modify and improve, or otherwise use works for any purpose in any medium, even commercially" (from WP:FU)). Esrever (klaT) 23:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, this particular discussion has not been framed as "should we use the seal instead of the logo" but "can we use the seal at all." Those are very different discussions. If someone wants to reopen the logo vs. seal discussion, please do so; I'd be happy to restate my preference for the commonly-recognized logo although I don't think that is the prevailing opinion as previous discussions have shown me to be in the distinct minority. ElKevbo (talk) 00:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the comment Esrever. I cannot argue that the logo is fair-use, that argument was settled in LOGOs. I humbly request that anyone who disagrees that the use of an organizations' self-described logo is not fair use, they submit it to NFR for consideration of NFCC.
However, I know that as a LOGO, it will pass as fair-use. It is explicitly listed as a LOGO, and a LOGO's use has been determined fair-use since 2007 by POLICY. This attempt hoever, which will end up having been in vain, to supplant an image of the seal of the school, is what I have asked to be resolved on WP:NFR.
I even took the time last week to send the request to GSU for the seal, and or the LOGO in the interest of our wikipedia policy via post. But without their consent, we can confidently use the LOGO.Fomeister (talk) 00:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
And the best part about fair use is that we can also use the seal without their consent. That's how fair use works. Esrever (klaT) 01:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Esrever, thank you again for the interaction and comments. While I respect your position, I tend to believe in the concept of a "free to copy and share" encyclopedia worldwide, which is a pillar of wikipedia, that can used anywhere in the world without a user having to explain "fair-use". Hence, my arguments above. We should never consider using a copyrighted image, even by claiming fair-use, unless it is absolutely essential to the understanding of the content. Thank you again for your help, comments, and interaction on this topic. Much obliged. Fomeister (talk) 02:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree with you, of course. The problem is that both images in this discussion are copyrighted. I appreciate your passion for this issue, but WP:UNI consensus seems to be for the seal to be at the top of the infobox. Since there is no non-copyrighted image available, it appears that the GSU seal represents the best choice. Esrever (klaT) 03:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
No disagreement on this point Esrever, as to copyright status. I think that GrapeApe explained my reasoning on the NFR page.However, I politely disagree on the WP:UNI consensus overriding POLICY however. WP:NFCC is Rule #1. There is a reason that WP:Projects are not allowed to give consensus over policy, in this case WP:NFCC. So, don't you agree that the image needs to be judges on NFR? And if NFR discussion determines that it is fair-use we move on from there? I know this is taking a lot of time from editing, from all of us. And on NFR, due consideration is supposed to be considering WP:NFCC. Again, I have sent the request so that wikipedia can enjoy a free use. In the interim, WP:NFR should decide based upon WP:NFCC. Thank you again for all your effort here, and I am now off to sleep. Regards. Fomeister (talk) 03:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I am so, so puzzled. Esrever (klaT) 04:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, Fomeister - Now that we've established the logo isn't free-use after all, the only contention is on point number 8 of the non-free content criteria, correct? That is, you don't think including the seal makes a big enough difference to this article to warrant including it. Is that right? -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 11:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I would say that even if a free-licensed logo was available, a logo does not qualify as the "equivalent" of the seal per criterion #1. VQuakr (talk) 02:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I just received an RFC notice for this, though it appears as if the discussion has already concluded. This is not really my area of expertise, nonetheless, I have two questions for Fomeister:

(i) Employing the same standards you used here, I wonder how many other (if any?) seals/logos of other organizations would be similarly affected?
(ii) While the adherence to the non-free content policy is, as far as I can see, still up in the air (excluding the Commons decision), I do not see how this would contravene (in spirit and letter) of USC Title 17, § 107:
§ 107 · Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or :::by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom :::use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the :::factors to
be considered shall include -
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

In addition, USC Title 17, § 108 appears to strengthen the argument.

§ 108 · Limitations on exclusive rights: Reproduction by libraries and archives
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title and notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement of copyright for a library or archives, or any of its employees acting within the scope of their employment, to reproduce no more than one copy or phonorecord of a work, except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), or to distribute such copy or phonorecord, under the conditions specified by this section, if—
(1) the reproduction or distribution is made without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage;
(2) the collections of the library or archives are (i) open to the public, or (ii) available not only to researchers affiliated with the library or archives :::or with the institution of which it is a part, but also to other persons doing research in a specialized field; and
(3) the reproduction or distribution of the work includes a notice of copyright that appears on the copy or phonorecord that is reproduced under the
Subject Matter and Scope of Copyright § 108 20 Copyright Law of the United States provisions of this section, or includes a legend stating that the work may :::be protected by copyright if no such notice can be found on the copy or phonorecord that is reproduced under the provisions of this section.

Thanks. --Misha Atreides (talk) 12:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion of unnecessary material[edit]

I've removed parts of the introduction that give information about other universities only loosely connection to Georgia State (namely the University of Georgia and Georgia Tech). This article is for information on Georgia State University, not for the university system as a whole. By the same token, it is unnecessary to include every published incident that occurs on the universities premises. This is not a news website. Skapunkskatedude (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

This issue has occurred again regarding the inclusion of crime reports in the campus security section of the article. This section is a report on the security offered on campus, not a run down of crime committed on the Georgia State campus. If you want to report on that information, you should make a new article entitled "List of Crime Reported on the Georgia State University Campus in 2012." Also, a lot of the information being added is 1) nothing to do with the University other than it involving students (included was crime committed off campus in an entirely different neighborhood), 2) extremely vague and non-specific to any event (all the sections added began with "a number of crimes were reported", and that type of language is simply uninformative and misrepresents information, and therefore is inappropriate on this website), and 3) are incorrectly cited (every citation only included a single link with no author information, no information on the publisher, or the media on which it was published. Also parts were not cited at all). Due to these problems, i've removed the 2 lines that this covers. Before changing my alterations, please take the time to explain how this is proper usage of this page. Skapunkskatedude (talk) 20:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)